So, Walker won the election. Will he now be indicted?

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

It wasn’t a meaningless gloat. It was very meaningful: the supposed Democratic advantage is nothing, because the legislature won’t meet.

Well, that’s not true. The advantage denies the Governor the possibility of calling a special session.

I called it a derisive gloat without meaning. I meant meaning as to the thread, that it was just a partisan dig.

[BrainGlutton]

There’s a website about the Walker investigation, but no new news stories appear to have been added to it since May 30.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Bricker

Surely you don’t want me to support legislation for a secular country such as the United States, with a strong legal requirement to separate church and state, based on my religious beliefs, do you?

I follow the command the help the less fortunate on a personal level. But i would never seek to enshrine my religious beliefs into law. That would be wrong.

Correct?

Your character is so incredibly lacking that you feel the only justification for helping the less fortunate is religious? That’s what you’re saying?

I’m agnostic, and I believe in helping the poor because the poor shouldn’t be made to needlessly suffer.

I’m not defective enough to lack basic human compassion.

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Your character is so incredibly lacking that you feel the only justification for helping the less fortunate is religious? That’s what you’re saying?

I’m agnostic, and I believe in helping the poor because the poor shouldn’t be made to needlessly suffer.

I’m not defective enough to lack basic human compassion.

Leaving aside the insult to my character, my post was in response to this language:

@BigT

The Bible very much teaches that poor people are to have stuff to eat and a place to sleep. So the Bible itself is saying that people are owed enough income to pull it off. You claim to be a Christian, you can’t discount that part because it disagrees with your political beliefs.

It’s been a reasonably consistent view here at the SDMB that religiously-based legislation is disfavored. My response repeated that view.

Are you endorsing BigT’s rationale?

[tomndebb]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Your character is so incredibly lacking . . .

This is not The BBQ Pit and you are treading on thin ice with your insistence on making personal slurs against your debate opponents.

Stop it now.

[ /Moderating ]

[F.U.Shakespeare]

This is terribly sexist of me, but her name (assuming it were pronounced as it’s spelled), voice and appearance add up to a Marx Brothers character come to life:

“Miss Cleavage, send in the next client!”

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Bricker

Leaving aside the insult to my character, my post was in response to this language:

It’s been a reasonably consistent view here at the SDMB that religiously-based legislation is disfavored. My response repeated that view.

Are you endorsing BigT’s rationale?

@tomndebb

This is not The BBQ Pit and you are treading on thin ice with your insistence on making personal slurs against your debate opponents.

Stop it now.

[ /Moderating ]

My “debating opponent” is not debating in good faith. I understand the rules, and I understand the necessity of what you said, but tell me you can’t see the false dilemma he posts? It’s coy and condescending. Obvious and insulting as the Great Wall is long. I fear this post my cross such a line, but it needs said.

Bricker, as an alleged lawyer, ought to know laws are not religious persecution if they reflect a genuine interest in society. I’m sure if someone asked him if murder should be illegal he wouldn’t go “no, because murder being wrong is a religious belief of mine”. I’m sure he’d find a compelling secular interest in murder being illegal. All he has to do is see a compelling secular interest in the poor not being shit all over, and left to suffer. He, according to his religious claims, believes mistreating the vulnerable is shitting all over his god. If there’s a compelling secular interest, he ought to jump at that.

He does not see such interest, or more accurately, sees a lame gotcha attempt using a false dilemma. I find this debating style maddening, and tiring. Like debating creationists, AWG deniers, and “scientific” bigots.

[tomndebb]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

My “debating opponent” is not debating in good faith.

Oh, piffle. None of this discussion has been based on actually imposing poverty or hunger on poor people. There is a difference of opinion regarding the ways and extents to which people should be permitted to seek fair employment situations. The bunch of you differ on what should be permitted and why.

However, you do not get to define Bricker’s postion and then accuse him of not arguing in good faith when he does not choose to follow your script for him. He gets to choose his own arguments and you get to criticize those arguments. That is it.

[ /Moderating ]

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

My “debating opponent” is not debating in good faith. I understand the rules, and I understand the necessity of what you said, but tell me you can’t see the false dilemma he posts? It’s coy and condescending. Obvious and insulting as the Great Wall is long. I fear this post my cross such a line, but it needs said.

Bricker, as an alleged lawyer, ought to know laws are not religious persecution if they reflect a genuine interest in society. I’m sure if someone asked him if murder should be illegal he wouldn’t go “no, because murder being wrong is a religious belief of mine”. I’m sure he’d find a compelling secular interest in murder being illegal. All he has to do is see a compelling secular interest in the poor not being shit all over, and left to suffer. He, according to his religious claims, believes mistreating the vulnerable is shitting all over his god. If there’s a compelling secular interest, he ought to jump at that.

He does not see such interest, or more accurately, sees a lame gotcha attempt using a false dilemma. I find this debating style maddening, and tiring. Like debating creationists, AWG deniers, and “scientific” bigots.

Nonsense. I don’t have to craft my opponent’s arguments for him. I responded to a claim that I should follow a certain social policy because the Bible encourages it. I responded that Bible commands are not a valid basis for laws in this country.

You seemingly want me to imagine a corresponding secular interest, accept that interest uncritically, and then accept that this interest is an equally valid basis for the proposed policy.

Um… no.

If you, or anyone else, feels there’s some compelling secular reason to enact some policy, trot it out and I’ll consider it. But it’s not bad faith to fail to be convinced by arguments that haven’t been made under the crazy theory that I should invent those arguments and then be convinced by them.

[gamerunknown]

Compelling secular reason to ensure the poor in a country have enough to eat and a place to sleep?

In order to properly afford them their constitutionally protected rights (to assemble, speak, etc.), the state should ensure the people should remain alive. There’s a pretty good correlation between not eating and dying. Also, there’s justification in the declaration of independence: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

Compelling secular reason to ensure the poor in a country have enough to eat and a place to sleep?

In order to properly afford them their constitutionally protected rights (to assemble, speak, etc.), the state should ensure the people should remain alive. There’s a pretty good correlation between not eating and dying. Also, there’s justification in the declaration of independence: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Sorry, but I don’t find that compelling.

First as to the Declaration, it is an aspirational document, and not a source of substantive law.

The Constitution’s guarantees of assembly and speech do, in fact, require that one is alive to exercise them. But that does not require that the government take positive steps to ensure that. The Constitution commands that the government not interfere with the right to assemble and to speak freely – it does not impose a duty to help people assemble or speak freely.

The theory you advance was shot down rather convincingly in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 US 189 (1989). As the Court explained:

But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law,” but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text.

[gamerunknown]

General welfare clause then.

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

General welfare clause then.

No, for the reasons laid out in US v Butler.

[gamerunknown]

I found this in wiki:

@Court

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

It seems their dissent was based not on the ability of Congress to tax and appropriate for the general welfare as opposed to enumerated clauses, but that this specific method was unconstitutional. Perhaps there’s another precedent to reinforce your view?

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

I found this in wiki:

@Const

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

It seems their dissent was based not on the ability of Congress to tax and appropriate for the general welfare as opposed to enumerated clauses, but that this specific method was unconstitutional. Perhaps there’s another precedent to reinforce your view?

No.

From the opinion itself:

The Government concedes that the phrase “to provide for the general welfare” qualifies the power “to lay and collect taxes.” The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted. Mr. Justice Story points out that if it were adopted “it is obvious that under color of the generality of the words, to `provide for the common defence and general welfare,’ the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers.”[11] The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation’s debts and making provision for the general welfare.

The text you quoted comes from a passage in which the Court summarizes other views, views which ultimately were not upheld. Here is your text, with the full context shown.

Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never [before] found it necessary to decide which is the true construction.

Apologies for the late replay. I composed this a long time ago, never hit “Submit” and never closed the tab. Just found it today.

[gamerunknown]

@Bricker

I composed this a long time ago, never hit “Submit” and never closed the tab.

Do you not switch off your PC?

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

[BigAppleBucky]

The Milwaukee J-S had a brief piece today. It says that the investigation has moved up from the Milwaukee County level to the state level.

Ongoing John Doe probe of Walker aides reaches state level

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

I presented my argument by inference. I can’t see any aspects of unionization of teachers that tends to increase teacher quality. And I can see an aspect of unionization that tends to decrease teacher quality. So I reason that under that system, unionized teachers as a group would likely be similar to non-unionized teachers, except at the “bottom end” where the unions would contain more poor teachers.

As a non-unionized teacher in a union-busting state who got to spend the summer hanging out with some teachers from unionized states, lemme talk about some stuff.

Working conditions.

Around here, we’re not unionized. We’re not paid very well. We’re required to put in as much overtime as the principal asks for. We have no protection from a vindictive administration. The district can make unilateral decisions about our working conditions (e.g., extending the school day, removing planning time, transforming work days into student contact days, expanding class sizes, removing assistants, etc.) without any teacher input.

Whine whine whine, sure. But your argument was from inference, so here’s my argument from inference: better working conditions tend to attract more qualified employees. Unions provide better working conditions. Therefore unionized districts tend to attract more qualified employees.

And although it’s just correlation, not causation, we may want to look at the correlation between unionized districts and educational achievement. I’m too tired to look the stats up now, but IIRC, the correlation is significant.

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

Do you not switch off your PC?

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

Normally, yes, I do shut off my PC. But I composed that reply while RDP’d into my home domain controller, which always stays on.

[Bricker]

@gamerunknown

Thanks for the reply anyway. Do you think federal government programs such as Social Security are constitutional?

Yes, they are constitutional, but not constitutionally required.